On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 12:14:03PM +0000, Quentin Perret wrote: > On Thursday 07 Mar 2019 at 10:57:50 (+0100), Juri Lelli wrote: > > If people think it's best to simply make this RO, I won't be against it. > > Just pointed out a conversation we recently had. Guess we could also > > make it RW again (properly) in the future if somebody complains. > > Right, now is probably the time to give it a go before folks start > depending on it. And if I am wrong (and that happens more often than I'd > like unfortunately :-)) and there are users of that thing, then the > revert should be trivial. >
+1 on all the points above ;)(I may also be getting things wrong here but I am not convinced that we can resolve the issue for all the ARM vendor possible combinations we may have to address) We should come up with some *magical* cpumask that we can use if we want to retain this write capability. And only way I see we can do that is using DT which in turn eliminates the need to have write capability for this sysfs. So I am going to ack the $subject patch for now. -- Regards, Sudeep